Case law

In re Sebald

143 F.2d 366 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 22, 1944

Upon due consideration, and especially in view of the decision in Aronld v. Bishop et al., 1 Fed. … The decision of the Board of Appeals is affirmed as to both claims 8 and 13.

Lang v. United States

4 Ct. Cust. 129 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 29, 1913

D. 31215) and Nix v. Hedden ( 149 U. … Murphy v. Arnson ( 96 U. S., 132 ); Pickhardt v. Merritt ( 132 U. S., 252, 258 ).

Triggiana v. Gens

482 F.2d 1381 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Sep 13, 1973

Even if the merits were considered, the circumstances would require agreement with the view the board obviously took, that the UN-16 microspheres met the density requirements of the count. See Dreyfus v. … The board cited as authority Orenick v. Shield, 144 USPQ 277 (Comr.Pat.1953).

Robbins v. Steinbart

57 F.2d 378 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 4, 1932

Leonard v. Everett, 52 App. D. C. 90, 281 F. 594 ; Oldroyd v. Morgan, 58 App. D. C. 78, 24 F.(2d) 1004 . … See, also, Howell v. Hess, 122 O. G. 2393 , 1906 C. D. 217.

Application of Edgar G. Heyl

379 F.2d 1018 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 5, 1967

See 35 U.S.C. § 102 (e); Muncie Gear Works, Inc. v. Outboard Marine & Mfg. Co., 315 U.S. 759 , 62 S.Ct. 865 , 86 L.Ed. 1171 (1942). … earlier than the board’s refusal here.

Steinberg Brothers, Inc. v. New England Overall Co., Inc.

377 F.2d 1004 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 25, 1967

Neumann & Co. v. Bon-Ton Auto Upholstery, Inc., 326 F.2d 799 , 51 CCPA 934 (1964) and R. Neumann & Co. v. … Byron & Sons, Inc. v. Stein Bros. Mfg. Co., 377 F.2d 1001 , 54 CCPA -.

Rossman v. United States

1 Ct. Cust. 280 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Feb 13, 1911

The Board of General Appraisers sustained the collector, relying upon United States v. Graser-Rothe (164 Fed. … The decision of the Board of General Appraisers is affirmed.

Glenwood Laboratories, Inc. v. American Home Products Corp.

455 F.2d 1384 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1972

The board’s view that a higher standard be applied to medicinal products finds support in previous decisions of this court, Clifton v. … .”); Campbell Products, Inc. v.

Application of Bisley

197 F.2d 355 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · May 28, 1952

We are unable to agree with the board’s holding as to claims 20 and 39. … Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Inc., v. Ray-O-Vac Company, 321 U.S. 275 , 64 S.Ct. 593 , 88 L.Ed. 721 ; In re DeLancey, 159 F.2d 737 , 34 C.C.P.A., Patents, 849.

In re Gruschwitz

320 F.2d 401 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jul 26, 1963

F 15842 V/37d, and the invention has since become patented in Germany on the basis of that application. … They contain no specification as to what error the board committed. If, in fact, the board did commit error it has not been pointed out.

Universal Overall Company v. Stonecutter Mills Corporation

379 F.2d 983 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 22, 1967

That application is involved in Opposition No. 40,441, in which *984 cross appeals from the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board are decided concurrently herewith, Stonecutter Mills Corp. v. … The same parties and the same opposition proceeding are involved here as in Universal Overall Company v.

Derby v. Whitworth

62 F.2d 368 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 27, 1932

Gowen v. Hendry & King, 37 F.(2d) 426, 428 ,17 C. C. P. A. 789; Dorer v. Moody, 48 F.(2d) 388 , 18 C. C. P. A. 1188. As was said in the opinion in said case of Gowen v. … Gowen v. Hendry & King, supra; Mell v. Midgley, 31 App. D. C. 534. In the case of Burson v. Vogel, 29 App. D.

Reese v. Hurst

661 F.2d 1222 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Oct 15, 1981

In an initial, broad attack on the board’s decisions, Reese points out that two “rule of reason” cases cited by the board, Grasselli v. Dewing, 534 F.2d 306 , 189 USPQ 637 *1226 (CCPA 1976), and Berges v. … In reviewing the board’s opinion, we begin with the well-settled proposition that an interference count must be given the broadest interpretation that it will reasonably support, Fontijn v.

In re Davis

123 F.2d 651 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Dec 1, 1941

The leading case upon this subject is that of Miller v. Eagle Manufacturing Company, 151 U. … novelty of the claim before us resides in the order of mixing the ingredients. ' There can be no doubt that the claims of the patent and the claim before us are for separate inventions; but under the rule laid down in Miller v.

In re Thompson

154 F.2d 189 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 6, 1946

The board held a Markush type claim which is wholly within .the scope of an allowed generic claim to be properly rejectable. In the case of Mathewson v. … We have no doubt the allowance of both types of those claims would violate the principle of Mathewson v. Campbell .

Breuer v. DeMarinis

558 F.2d 22 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jun 30, 1977

Kistler v. … The board’s opinion does not mention this statement. . Accord, Golota v. Strom, 489 F.2d 1287 , 180 USPQ 396 (Cust. & Pat.App. 1974). .

Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States

2 Ct. Cust. 389 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Jan 11, 1912

Arthur v. Morgan ( 112 U. S., 495 ), Herrman v. Robertson ( 152 U. S., 521 ), Presson v. Russell ( 152 U. S., 577 ), Heinze v. Arthur’s Executors ( 144 U. S., 28 ), Battle v. United States (108 Fed. Rep., 216). … Arthur v. Fox ( 108 U. S., 125 ). In Pickhardt v. Merritt ( 132 U.

In re Mraz

455 F.2d 1069 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Mar 9, 1972

The half-angle of the V-shaped groove 10a measures about 6° on this drawing, but the specification says nothing about the angle. … However, the board’s decision did not affirm the rejection of claims 5 and 6; indeed, these claims have not been rejected.

In re Hornsey

48 F.2d 911 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 22, 1931

The board sustained the examiner in holding that “ there is no invention in substituting the reduction step of Stansfield in the process of Rendall,” and the board states further that:. … (Patents) 568, 34 F. (2d) 1012; and Line Material Co. v. Brady Elec. & Mfg. Co., 299 Fed. 824 .

Smith v. Swaine

127 F.2d 140 · Court of Customs and Patent Appeals · Apr 27, 1942

Swaine, before the board, attacked these tests as being insufficient and argued that under the Smith v. … We are in agreement with the decision of the examiner and in disagreement with that of the board. There is nothing in the Smith v.